Scientists Flacking for Corporations
Ilena Rose
EXCERPT: JUNK BONDS
Scientists Flacking for Corporations
Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from Trust Us, We're Experts!,
by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, published in 2001 by Tarcher/Putnam.
"Junk Bonds" describes some of the corporate-funded organizations that
have rallied against environmental and public health protections by
claiming that they are based upon so-called "junk science." As Rampton and
Stauber demonstrate earlier in their book, however, the "junk science"
label is a PR device that does not reflect the quality or rigor of the
research in question.
Casual visitors to Milloy's Junk Science Home Page might be tempted to
dismiss him as merely an obnoxious adolescent with a website. They would
be surprised to discover that he is a well-connected fixture in
conservative Washington policy circles. He currently holds the title of
"adjunct scholar" at the libertarian Cato Institute, which was rated the
fourth most influential think tank in Washington, D.C., in a 1999 survey
of congressional staffers and journalists.
Milloy's vitriolic style may seem strange to outsiders, but it generates
and channels the anger that right-wing pseudopopulists have become adept
at mobilizing against environmentalists. Milloy's website frequently
provides phone and fax numbers that visitors can use to bombard news
editors and politicians with correspondence. Using dittoheads to amplify
his messages, he has claimed responsibility for engineering the 1999
firing of George Lundberg as editor of the Journal of the American Medical
Association, and for the passage of legislation by Congress that
substantially alters the rules regarding data disclosure by
government-funded scientists.
In addition to the website, Milloy is a prolific author of eco-bashing
articles that the Cato Institute helps circulate to newspapers and other
publications. His diatribes against junk science have run in publications
including the New York Post, the Washington Times, Arizona Republic,
Electricity Daily, San Francisco Examiner, Detroit Free Press, Investor's
Business Daily, Cincinnati Enquirer, USA Today, New York Post, London
Financial Times, San Francisco Examiner, Wall Street Journal, Chicago
Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Chemical and Engineering News. The
Chicago Sun-Times has run "special reports" by Milloy that are offered as
news stories rather than editorials, in which he downplays environmental
concerns about issues such as biotech foods. He can rein in the rhetoric
when he needs to, and some of his stories read like straight news. Perhaps
the most disturbing thing about his writing for the Chicago Sun-Times is
the newspaper's failure to provide its readers with any information about
his background as an industry lobbyist. It describes him simply as "a
Washington-based business writer specializing in science" who "holds
advanced degrees in health sciences from Johns Hopkins University and a
law degree from Georgetown University." (Milloy's "advanced degree" from
Johns Hopkins is a master's degree in biostatistics.) Indeed, some of the
publications that quote Milloy tend to inflate or distort his credentials.
He has been described in various places as a "risk expert," an
"economist," and a "statistician."
Like other corporate-funded front groups, the organizations that flack for
sound science are sometimes fly-by-night organizations. Called into
existence for a particular cause or legislative lobby campaign, they often
dry up and blow away once the campaign is over. The tendency of groups to
appear and disappear creates another form of camouflage, making it
difficult for journalists and everyday citizens to sort out the
bewildering proliferation of names and acronyms. This was indeed what
happened with the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which was
quietly retired in late 1998. Its legacy, however, continues. Milloy's
Junk Science Home Page now claims to be sponsored by an organization
called "Citizens for the Integrity of Science," about which no further
information is publicly available. It is one of dozens, if not hundreds,
of industry-funded organizations and conservative think tanks that
continue to wave the sound science banner. Some are large and well-known,
while others are small-scale operations, as the following examples
illustrate:
* The Washington Legal Foundation continues to press the campaign against
"junk science in the courtroom." It runs quarter-page advertisements in
the New York Times, calling them "public service messages" by "free
enterprise advocates with public interest know-how." In a 1997 ad,
headlined "Junk Science Makes Junk Law," the WLF recited the familiar
litany -- Alar, Bendectin, breast implants. "Just imagine the products
Americans will never have because of junk science," it concluded. Internal
Philip Morris documents describe WLF as "a close ally of PM for many
years. WLF has been involved in numerous aspects of the tobacco industry
debate. They have filed amicus briefs against the EPA; they have written
and promoted policy papers supporting our position on the
advertising/First Amendment issue; and, most recently, they authored a
major paper detailing why the tobacco industry is already one of the most
highly regulated industries in America and does not need further
regulatory control."
* The Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank that spent the 1960s
and 1970s envisioning nuclear war scenarios and defending the war in
Vietnam, today employs "adjunct scholar" Dennis T. Avery as an in-house,
anti-environmentalist expert on junk science. Avery is author of the tract
Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic and has championed the idea
that organic food is more dangerous than foods grown using synthetic
pesticides. In the fall of 1998, Avery began claiming that "people who eat
organic and 'natural' foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the
population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria
(0157:H7)." This happens, he says, because organic food is grown in animal
manure. He claims his data comes from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
(CDC), the federal agency that tracks outbreaks of foodborne illness. In
reality, organic food is no more likely to be grown in animal manure than
nonorganic food. The CDC vigorously denies Avery's claim and has even gone
to the unusual step of issuing a news release disavowing it. Nevertheless,
Avery's message has been repeated in media op-ed pieces written by Avery
with titles such as "Organic Foods Can Make You Sick" and in news stories
by the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and numerous other
publications in the United States and Europe. In February 2000, Avery was
the featured expert for an ABC "20/20" story by television reporter John
Stossel which speculated that "buying organic could kill you." Stossel's
piece made no mention of Avery's affiliation with the Hudson Institute,
let alone any mention of the institute's corporate funding from
agrichemical and agribusiness heavyweights, including Monsanto, DuPont,
Dow-Elanco, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra, Cargill, and Procter & Gamble.
Stossel also claimed that "20/20"'s own laboratory tests had found as many
pesticide residues on organic produce as on the conventionally grown
variety -- a claim the network would have to retract later when its
researchers admitted that no such tests had been conducted.
* The Competitive Enterprise Institute, backed by major oil companies,
claims that "thousands of scientists agree there's no solid evidence of a
global-warming problem." It boasts of media hits in the Wall Street
Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, "MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour," "Good
Morning America," and "Larry King Live". CEI's activities include a "Death
by Regulation" project aimed at "shifting the policy debate" about
environmental regulations by making the argument that "government
intervention carries its own deadly consequences." It claims, for example,
that automobile emissions standards drive consumers to buy smaller,
flimsier automobiles, causing more deaths from car crashes. Similarly, it
argues that there are "adverse public health effects of medical drug
regulation and nutritional labeling." Drug regulations, it says, keep new
medications off the market. As for nutritional labeling, it believes that
wine makers should be able to advertise that wine consumption prevents
heart attacks. However, there should be no requirement for labeling of
milk from rBGH-treated cows. During the peak of the PR campaign against
EPA's secondhand smoke report, CEI cranked out opinion articles for major
newspapers with titles such as "A Smoking Gun Firing Blanks," "EPA's Bad
Science Mars ETS Report," and "Safety Is a Relative Thing for Cars; Why
Not for Cigarettes?" CEI funders include the American Petroleum Institute,
Amoco, ARCO Foundation, Armstrong Foundation, Burlington Northern Railroad
Co., Carthage Foundation, Charles C. Koch Charitable Foundation, Claude R.
Lambe Charitable Foundation, Coca-Cola, CSX Corp., David H. Koch
Charitable Foundation, Detroit Farming Inc., Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp.,
Ford Motor Co., General Motors, IBM, JM Foundation, Lynde and Harry
Bradley Foundation, Pfizer Inc., Philip Morris Companies, Phillip M.
McKenna Foundation, Precision Valve Corp., Sarah Scaife Foundation, Smith
Richardson Foundation, and Texaco Foundation.
* The Illinois-based Heartland Institute publishes anti-environmental
books with titles like Eco-Sanity by institute president Joe Bast. It also
has a "PolicyFax" system through which it makes position papers available
on a wide range of issues, including reprints of essays by Jacob Sullum,
ACSH, the Cato Institute, the National Smokers Alliance, Michael Fumento,
and the Tobacco Institute. Although the PolicyFax database includes
numerous reprints of articles by Elizabeth Whelan, her writings against
the tobacco industry are not included. In addition to repeating the
conservative line on everything from Alar to biotechnology to dioxin,
Heartland enthusiastically reiterates the tobacco industry line on
secondhand smoke. Its board of directors hails from General Motors, Amoco,
Procter & Gamble, and Philip Morris, companies that are also among its
principal contributors. An internal Philip Morris memo from March 1994
notes that Philip Morris "provided technical comments for the Heartland
Institute's book on Eco-Sanity."
* The American Policy Center (APC), headed by longtime PR pro Thomas
DeWeese, weighs in on what can safely be called the loony fringe of the
sound science movement. One issue of the APC's newsletter attacks longtime
environmentalist and author Jeremy Rifkin as "anti-industry,
anti-civilization, anti-people" and accuses him of preaching "suicide,
abortion, cannibalism and sodomy." The APC is also the publisher of a
report titled "Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible
Decisions," which says EPA regulatory initiatives rest on "shaky
scientific ground." It also publishes a newsletter called EPA Watch,
edited by Bonner Cohen, which accuses the EPA of everything from
destroying the U.S. economy to trying to stop people from taking showers.
A Philip Morris strategy document describes EPA Watch as an "asset"
created by PM funding allocated "to establish groups ... that have a
broader impact for PM." Another strategy memo discusses plans to promote
"EPA Watch/Bonner Cohen as expert on EPA matters, i.e., regular syndicated
radio features on EPA activities ... news bureau function, speaking
engagements, whatever can be done to increase his visibility and
credibility on matters dealing with the EPA."
* The National Anxiety Center calls itself "a think tank headquartered in
Maplewood, New Jersey" whose mission is to dispel the "widespread,
baseless fears" fostered by environmentalism regarding deforestation,
pesticides, garbage, and endangered species. Its founder and sole
proprietor is Alan Caruba, a longtime PR adviser to the pesticide industry
and a personal friend of Steven Milloy. On his website, Caruba attacks
everyone from EPA director Carol Browner to now-deceased oceanologist
Jacques Cousteau as co-conspirators in a "green genocide agenda" to "save
the earth by killing humans." Caruba also contributes to the newsletter of
the American Policy Center.
Experts at Being Experts
Since ideology, not science, unites industry's self-proclaimed debunkers
of junk science, it is not surprising that many of industry's "experts" on
scientific matters are themselves nonscientists. In July 1997, the
Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research (CLEAR) issued an
analysis of the "sound science" movement titled "Show Me the Science!
Corporate Polluters and the 'Junk Science' Strategy." It examined the
credentials of many leading "science experts" in the Directory of
Environmental Scientists and Economists, published in 1996 by the
conservative National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR).
Ostensibly, the directory purported to identify experts in twenty-seven
policy fields, ranging alphabetically from agriculture to wildlife. "The
environment is too important to leave in the hands of political
activists," it stated in the introduction. "Yet, this is precisely where
the United States has left most environmental decision making in recent
years. Political activists -- not authentic environmental scholars,
scientists and economists -- have come to dominate both the headlines and
Washington's legislative agenda." Upon scrutinizing the directory,
however, CLEAR found that fewer than half of the experts listed in NCPPR's
directory were actual scientists, and in fact only fifty-one of the 141
individuals listed had a Ph.D. in any field whatsoever.
This does not mean that there are no reputable scientists who support the
positions taken by groups like TASSC and ACSH. Norman Borlaug, a Nobel
Prize recipient, has been involved with ACSH for many years and currently
sits on the ACSH board of directors. Former U.S. Surgeon General C.
Everett Koop and former JAMA editor George Lundberg (whose firing Steven
Milloy claims to have helped engineer) are also prominent ACSH supporters.
For that matter, TASSC in its heyday was able to call on the support of
Frederick J. Seitz, an eminent researcher in the field of solid-state
physics, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and retired
president of Rockefeller University.
Even scientists are human beings. They may be brilliant in a particular
field of research but naïve or uninformed about fields outside their
specialty, and they are not immune from political ideologies or the lure
of money. The conservative political views of Koop and Seitz are
well-known. Although Koop certainly deserves credit for his principled
stand regarding tobacco, since leaving public office he has participated
in several ventures that call into question his objectivity and ability to
avoid ethical conflicts of interest. In April 1999, for example, he
circulated a letter in Congress urging legislators to allow the
Schering-Plough Corporation to extend the patent on its allergy drug
Claritin. By keeping the drug under patent, the company would be able to
prevent other companies from offering cheaper generic versions, thereby
garnering an estimated $1 billion in additional profits. The following
month, he met with members of Congress to defend the company's position on
legislation involving another drug used to treat hepatitis C. Koop did not
disclose that Schering-Plough had given a $1 million grant earlier that
year to his nonprofit organization, the Koop Foundation.
On another occasion, Koop testified in defense of latex gloves, which have
been linked to life-threatening allergies. Latex allergies affect roughly
3 percent of the general population and upward of 10 percent of health
care workers who are regularly exposed through the use of latex gloves and
other medical supplies. An estimated 200,000 nurses have developed latex
allergies, which can be disabling and even deadly. Alternatives to latex
exist and are gradually being adopted by the health care industry, but
Koop told Congress that latex glove concerns are "borderline hysteria." He
also claimed -- falsely, as he later discovered -- that a study
undercutting concerns about latex gloves had been conducted by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In fact, the study he cited
had been sponsored by a company that makes the gloves. And Koop had failed
to disclose the fact that two years previously another maker of latex
gloves had paid him a reported $656,250 in consulting fees to serve as a
"spokesman for the company."
"What this long admired and respected man has done in taking money from a
glove manufacturer and then speaking out on its behalf is wrong," said
Susan Wilburn, senior specialist in occupational safety and health for the
American Nurses Association. Another ANA representative, Michelle Nawar,
noted that latex allergy "is a very serious disease" that "can be a
debilitating, career-ending illness." In fact, five deaths have been
reported from using latex gloves, four involving nurses.
The conflicts of interest involving Frederick Seitz are even more telling.
Shortly before his retirement from Rockefeller University in 1979, he went
to work as a "permanent consultant" to the R. J. Reynolds tobacco company,
a hiring that was deliberately not publicized. The tobacco industry
eagerly traded on Seitz's reputation, even though R. J. Reynolds CEO
William Hobbs privately advised executives at Philip Morris in 1989 that
Seitz was "quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice."
In June 1993, the CNN news network ran a report citing claims by Philip
Morris that "prominent scientists privately agree" with its opinion of the
EPA risk assessment of secondhand smoke. "We asked for specifics,
promising anonymity if necessary," stated CNN correspondent Steve Young.
"The only name Philip Morris provided was the former president of this
prestigious institution, Rockefeller University, in New York." Although
CNN never discovered Seitz's background as a tobacco industry consultant,
he did not perform well in his role as third-party spokesperson. When
Young called Seitz to ask directly if he had said that EPA's report was
based on flawed science, Seitz responded, "No, I have not."
"You have not said that?" Young asked again.
"I have not said that, no," Seitz replied.
"Well, why not?"
"I haven't read it," Seitz replied.
That same month, however, Multinational Business Services (Jim Tozzi's
lobby shop and Steven Milloy's former employer) reported to Philip Morris
that it had "initiated discussions with Dr. Seitz of Rockefeller
University to support MBS findings on ETS." The following year, a report
appeared with Seitz listed as the author, concluding that "there is no
good scientific evidence that moderate passive inhalation of tobacco smoke
is truly dangerous under normal circumstances."
James W. Glass
difficult, if not impossible, to attack the message itself except through ad
hominem vitriol. Engaging in open debate risks exposing their paucity of
substantive argument. Open debate is the declared enemy of the fascisti.
Critic's motto: Thought control for one and all.
Milloy has open invitations for debate. More than can be said for the
fascisti.
Jim
"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ilena-13070...@24-25-201-231.san.rr.com...
> http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/01/30/2.html
>
..much fascisti rambling snipped..
Ilena Rose
Milloy's TrashTalk Forum regularly throws off anyone who dares to speak
against his sponsors ... they then ridicule, mock, and post lies about the
Critic ... while doing a Circle Jerk Congratulations to each other on how
smart they are.
You fool no one but the fools ... In Junk$cience Land ... clicking on a
website is "stalking" ...
Mr Glass ... why do you think Monsanto, the Dows, Exxon etc. gets millions
of dollars annually to Milloy and Team?
In article <Og147.12235$47.34...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, "James W.
Glass" <jwgl...@home.com> wrote:
**Critic of Milloy's message typically attacking the messenger since it is
**difficult, if not impossible, to attack the message itself except through ad
**hominem vitriol. Engaging in open debate risks exposing their paucity of
**substantive argument. Open debate is the declared enemy of the fascisti.
**Critic's motto: Thought control for one and all.
**
**Milloy has open invitations for debate. More than can be said for the
**fascisti.
**
**Jim
**
**"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
**news:ilena-13070...@24-25-201-231.san.rr.com...
**> http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/01/30/2.html
**>
**
**..much fascisti rambling snipped..
Orac
il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:
> Milloy's TrashTalk Forum regularly throws off anyone who dares to speak
> against his sponsors ... they then ridicule, mock, and post lies about the
> Critic ... while doing a Circle Jerk Congratulations to each other on how
> smart they are.
Really? Can you give us any specific examples of this behavior?
> You fool no one but the fools ... In Junk$cience Land ... clicking on a
> website is "stalking" ...
>
> Mr Glass ... why do you think Monsanto, the Dows, Exxon etc. gets millions
> of dollars annually to Milloy and Team?
Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
Ilena Rose
<Or...@mac.com> wrote:
**In article <ilena-14070...@24-25-201-231.san.rr.com>,
** il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:
**
**> Milloy's TrashTalk Forum regularly throws off anyone who dares to speak
**> against his sponsors ... they then ridicule, mock, and post lies about the
**> Critic ... while doing a Circle Jerk Congratulations to each other on how
**> smart they are.
**
**Really? Can you give us any specific examples of this behavior?
Welcome back Dave ... it's all been posted before ... learn to do a good
Google search ...
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
For newsgroups
http://www.google.com/advanced_search
For WWW
it's all been discussed ...
You can hire me to search for you ... but no more freebies ...
**> You fool no one but the fools ... In Junk$cience Land ... clicking on a
**> website is "stalking" ...
**>
**> Mr Glass ... why do you think Monsanto, the Dows, Exxon etc. gets millions
**> of dollars annually to Milloy and Team?
**
**Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?
**
**--
**Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
** |
** |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
** | inconvenience me with questions?"
David Kendra
dk
"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ilena-14070...@24-25-201-231.san.rr.com...
Orac
> In article <Orac-02A89C.1...@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Orac
> <Or...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> **In article <ilena-14070...@24-25-201-231.san.rr.com>,
> ** il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:
> **> Milloy's TrashTalk Forum regularly throws off anyone who dares to speak
> **> against his sponsors ... they then ridicule, mock, and post lies about the
> **> Critic ... while doing a Circle Jerk Congratulations to each other on how
> **> smart they are.
> **
> **Really? Can you give us any specific examples of this behavior?
>
>
>
> Welcome back Dave ... it's all been posted before ... learn to do a good
> Google search ...
>
> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
> For newsgroups
>
> http://www.google.com/advanced_search
> For WWW
>
> it's all been discussed ...
I don't recall you ever presenting any such evidence. If you want me to
do searches, by all means give me the "Subject:" header under which you
posted the information. I don't have time to waste doing an undirected
search by trial and error.
> You can hire me to search for you ... but no more freebies ...
LOL! I'm the one who should be telling you that, given that I recently
did a few freebie Medline searches for you when you were utterly unable
to come up with scientific evidence for your own claims.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"